Search Targeting Geolocations

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'Location keys to use in ad set targeting,' which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not describe response format details or mention the response_format parameter, which is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a bullet list of args. It is front-loaded and free of fluff. However, it leaves out response_format from the args list, which is a minor structural gap but does not detract significantly from readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key args, and return value. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the response_format option, and it does not clarify default behavior (e.g., type defaults to city). While adequate for basic usage, it leaves some operational details unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only response_format has a description in the schema). The description compensates by explaining q, type, and limit with examples and enum values, but it omits response_format entirely. It adds meaning for most parameters but not all, so it partially compensates for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Searches for geographic targeting options' with examples (countries, regions, cities, zip codes), which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_search_targeting_interests by focusing on geographic types, but it does not explicitly name alternatives. This is clear but not fully differentiated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other targeting search tools (e.g., meta_search_targeting_interests, meta_search_targeting_demographics). It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer from the name and context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.